Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

page: 39
2
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
To the F-22 being "flown by computers", well every modern plane is. And I think older naturally unstable 4th gen planes are actually more vulnerable to EMP, because they cannot fly at all without computer corrections. F-22 seems to be more stable design than 4th gen aircrafts.




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
To the F-22 being "flown by computers", well every modern plane is. And I think older naturally unstable 4th gen planes are actually more vulnerable to EMP, because they cannot fly at all without computer corrections. F-22 seems to be more stable design than 4th gen aircrafts.

IIRC, most of the flight controls on modern planes are EMP hardened. Also, it has been mentioned that Raptor is more unstable than pretty much every other operational American design except for the other two stealth aircraft. It isn't stable in the least bit.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
delete

[edit on 7-11-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If you are the United states and can invest in such expensive ideas.... I am not fully convinced that this plane is not simply overly expensive for the task or will be deployed in sufficient numbers ( turn around time etc) to affect the outcome of a strategic war against Russia and even more uncertain if this capability is required for the very many lesser enemies... If you can buy half a dozen or more Su-27's/Mig 29's/ Mig-31's for the same price ( not even mentioning upgrading much older planes with current technology to absolutely swamp the F-22's) does it make much sense?

The F-22 will mostly act as a force multiplier for the US Air Force. During the Cold War it would have been a one to one replacement for the F-15 but now most are realizing that it can do many jobs effectively that are outside of the F-15's realm. It doesn't just have one mission in the combat theatre these days.

The numbers arguement could go on forever but there are multitudes of F-16, F/A-18, and later F-35s for the role of the common fighter. The F-22 alone will not change the tide of a war but it can change how the war is fought in some areas.

They are doing pretty good these days in terms of maintenence. Being brand-new has an upside. I remember someone posting a report about that but I'd expect the Raptor's turn-around time to be at least as good as the F-15s.


I am of the opinion that a major strategic war will not simply end because of the use of nuclear weapons, and will in fact go on as factories go on producing, and then lesser planes in larger numbers is probably preferable to something like the F-22 which required is much wider resource and technological base for production.

The LM plant in Marietta wouldn't have problems cranking up production in wartime if needed. Don't forget that the Super Hornet, Eagle, and Viper plants are still open for rapid production. Again, the Raptor is a force multiplier sending information from the battlefield to other planes in the area and coordinating attacks.



I am to be the pilot i would pick the F-22 by a massive margin as everything i know tells me that this is in fact a great airplane when used against symmetrical forces. In terms of picking it as a strategic weapon to fight and win a world war I'm not so sure i would pick it had i my nations best interest in mind....

It's never been a strategic weapon though. The project title told that from the start.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
The F-22 will mostly act as a force multiplier for the US Air Force. During the Cold War it would have been a one to one replacement for the F-15 but now most are realizing that it can do many jobs effectively that are outside of the F-15's realm. It doesn't just have one mission in the combat theatre these days.


Well that's where i agree and disagree... The cold war is NOT over despite what the media has to say on the issue and the F-15 should probably be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis if the US ever wants to be able to defend itself against Russia where hostilities to break out. If all the US wants to do is fight lesser enemies the F-22 is probably not such a bad idea but i would have focused my efforts not on stealthier airframes but on building up my SEAD/DEAD capabilities as those are fast fading for the US air force. The US problem lies not in gaining air superiority over enemy air space but in interdicting their ground forces; which should obviously be the only goal of a air force imo.

Such capabilities are not at all helped by a high altitude super super interceptor.


The numbers arguement could go on forever but there are multitudes of F-16, F/A-18, and later F-35s for the role of the common fighter. The F-22 alone will not change the tide of a war but it can change how the war is fought in some areas.


The US loses few if any fighters against opposing air forces and building more airplanes dedicated to that role is imo a complete misapplication of resources and more importantly , emphasis.


They are doing pretty good these days in terms of maintenence. Being brand-new has an upside. I remember someone posting a report about that but I'd expect the Raptor's turn-around time to be at least as good as the F-15s.


Sounds almost too good to be true and i suspect such claims will turn out that way in practice. I am sure you got that from a reliable source so feel free to share.



The LM plant in Marietta wouldn't have problems cranking up production in wartime if needed. Don't forget that the Super Hornet, Eagle, and Viper plants are still open for rapid production.


Would there be a plant and would the special materials it requires be readily available after much of the continental US have been laid waste a nuclear strike? How widely distributed is the production plants and how unique are the skills and industrial base required for production? Where would it operate from after all the airfields are gone? High technology weapons are great but imo the operation and upkeep should in most cases be the first consideration. The F-109 was good once in the air but to get it there and back on the ground cost the Germans as much as 30% of all models built in airfield and operational or deployment 'accidents'. If you look at what sort of places the Mig-29 and Su-27's varieties can operate from it becomes obvious what they are still planning for and what they will give up for such capabilities.


Again, the Raptor is a force multiplier sending information from the battlefield to other planes in the area and coordinating attacks.


Which can be done much more cheaply without compromising the force structure so badly. I'm just not sure this is the way to go for the worlds premier conventional air force as it trades strategic flexibility for dominance in pure head on conventional warfare where no one does anything unexpected.


It's never been a strategic weapon though. The project title told that from the start.


All weapons are in the end strategic weapons as all fighting is done towards strategic ends and what compromises strategic considerations should be excluded automatically. The US air force can stand to lose hundreds of planes and pilots in wars against third world nations ( if those wars were actually legal and in the interest of the American public no one would balk at such cost but since it's wars for corporate profit where American soldiers must be kept alive ...... ) but can it afford to have thousands less planes in it's force structure simply to try avoid such losses?

Trading in strategic flexibility so that you may lose less pilots in a strategic scrap against a third world nation is a very bad idea as it assume you will not have to fight a third world war against the other superpower in the world.

As i said it just seems to me that this is a politicians weapon and not something the US armed forces needs, especially at such cost, to win wars efficiently.

Hope you find some time to respond...

Stellar



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Fisrt of all, The Su-47 was never built to challenge or Compete the Raptor. It was a Just a Prototype of the PAKFA to make Foriegn Countires(India) to fund the program which the Russians are still Struggling.

Second, The Su-47 will never be Inducted into any Airforce and its Unfair to Compare it with the Raptor.


The Su-47 is just a technology demonstrater like the X series of jets from nasa

The Su-47 has no weapon systems so unless the pilot opens the cockpit and throws the flight manual at the F-22, the Berkut would be doomed



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by indian_sukhoi
Fisrt of all, The Su-47 was never built to challenge or Compete the Raptor. It was a Just a Prototype of the PAKFA to make Foriegn Countires(India) to fund the program which the Russians are still Struggling.

Second, The Su-47 will never be Inducted into any Airforce and its Unfair to Compare it with the Raptor.


The Su-47 is just a technology demonstrater like the X series of jets from nasa

The Su-47 has no weapon systems so unless the pilot opens the cockpit and throws the flight manual at the F-22, the Berkut would be doomed


So who do you think you are trying to bring facts and common sense here?
Some of these silly threads with topics like this must be started by bored 13 year olds.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
If the S-47 was a production fighter this forum question might be abled to be answered. So since it is not a production model it does not essentially exist. The F-22 Raptor is the greatest air superiority fighter in the world since the F-15 Eagle and will be for 25 years to come. No fighter even comes close.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 7-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 7-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Well, not taking anything away from the F-22 but saying that there's nothing between it and the F-15 is a bit optimistic.

I'm sure there are many a/c out there which would give the F-15 a run for its money.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Just an interesting bit about the F-22...

I live in Alaska near Elmendorf AFB. One of my roommates last year was in the Air Force. He fabricated titanium for F-15's. They break something every time they fly...

Anyhow, he had been bringing home books on how to manufacture the carbon fiber panels that make the F-22 a lot lighter. Every so often I'd ask him stuff about the 22's. We have been getting ready to get them for a while, and I have always found military aircraft fascinating. He'd take me on base to play poker at the hangars every so often, too.

Well, one day we were tossing back some pitchers and eating burgers at a bar... The 22's had just come up here on some kind of west coast training mission. They stayed in his hangars with the 15's, but with armed guards keeping tabs on them (one of which was his buddy). He CLAIMS, and I have no way to prove it, that when he ran his hand over the surface of one, that it had some kind of gelatinous coating with metallic flecks in it. He looked at me straight in the eye and said it was alien stealth technology. He claims they reapply it each time they take a significant flight. He wasn't known to bull# very much. He also had a gigantic poster of a saucer in his room that said "I believe".... and I believe him.

Oh, more related to the thread... As a gauge of how powerful the 22's are, he said in tests that one could engage 7+ F-15's from over 200 miles and completely obliterate them.

BTW, this forum is great. I just made the switch from the lunatic fringe...



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I'm afraid that its safe to assume PAK-FA will be at least better in one way.

The AL-41 engine: It DOES give out 5000lbs more thrust than the F119. Add to that the confirmed reports that the fighter will be smaller than the Su-27 which is 50,000lbs, you get a thrust:weight ratio WELL OVER 1.5. With that data its safe to assume that it will be significantly faster than the disclosed speed of f-22, in both top speed and supercruise.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Maximum output alone does not tell the whole story, mil thrust as well as fuel efficiency along with some other data on altitude performance and bypass ratio are also important. Also, you don't really know that 35K is the maximum output for the F119...



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Yea.. I mean if you have alien sheathing then how can you counter/better that?!!




posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Add to that the confirmed reports that the fighter will be smaller than the Su-27 which is 50,000lbs, you get a thrust:weight ratio WELL OVER 1.5.


Do you have sources for this confirmation?



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yea.. I mean if you have alien sheathing...


I'm pretty sure the F-22 does not contain any alien coating or any substance which will come off on your hand like that. It's RAM is also supposed to be more limited (in appliance) and more robust than previous ones.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Is the S-47 Berkut (meaning Golden Eagle) up there with the F-22 Raptor (which is in full production and has operating squadrons as of now)? Not a chance. Not even close. The S-47 Berkut isn't even a production fighter, it's just a prototype.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I definitely do not know as much as you guys about these jets. To my question. Do the comments regarding the S37 not being able to see the F22 pertain to the fact the the F22 is a stealth fighter or that the F22 can attack at great distances? If the answer is stealth, then isn't there something called passive radar which eliminates the advantages of stealth? If the answer is distance, didn't we have this advantage with the F14? This jet could shoot down planes before the bogies realized they were in the air because of the advanced radar and the phoenix missile. However, later in the F14's life cycle the Navy indicated that the Phoenix missile system useless. It was not used much.

Just curious.


Irv



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
It's the stealth. Pilots have said that even at close range, when they can SEE the F-22 they can't even get weapons on them. There are systems that will see stealths, but not well enough to shoot them or track them all that well.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irvinraw
didn't we have this advantage with the F14? This jet could shoot down planes before the bogies realized they were in the air because of the advanced radar and the phoenix missile. However, later in the F14's life cycle the Navy indicated that the Phoenix missile system useless. It was not used much.


The F-14 was like a mini AWACS and served as airbourne command and control (for Iran), much like the F-22 is supposed to. It is like an amalgamation of the best things about the 14 and the 15. The F35 is clearly applying these technologies to the 16/Harrier profile. Just my observations. As to the phoenix missile I beleive the kinks could of been worked out, but the latest AIM-120's are surpassing it anyway. I do like the 14 as a naval plane, perhaps if we stuck to the cold war military doctrine we'd have a new version. Our doctrine now involves using cheaper, multi role jets foremost.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The two problems with the AIM-54 were that it was fairly easy to outmaneuver at the end of its flight, and it was developing cracks in the airframes, that would cause them to explode in flight. The long range was a great advantage, but they were never designed to hit fighters at that range. They were designed to break up huge formations of bombers, and hit cruise missiles that were flying a nice straight and level flight.






top topics



 
2
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join